Appeal 2006-3356
Application 10/244,722
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to translating computer client request formats.
Claim 29 is illustrative:
29. A computer-implemented method for accessing MFS-based IMS
applications, comprising the acts of:
receiving a client request from a client program via an MFS XML
adapter; and
returning a response to the client program via the MFS XML adapter
at least in part by using a MFS message output descriptor to translate
information from a MFS IMS component to XML.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Kuno US 2003/0120730 A1 June 26, 2003
Najmi US 6,753,889 B1 June 22, 2004
Microsoft Press, “Computer Dictionary,” Third Edition, p. 371, 1997.
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-6, 13-16, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Najmi.
2. Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, 20-27, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Najmi.
3. Claims 9, 19, 28, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Najmi and Kuno.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013